Skip to main content

England... MI6... so old-fashioned!


Skyfall
(2012)

There is much to enjoy in Sam Mendes’ 50th anniversary Bond film, but it’s some way off being the pinnacle of the series suggested in some quarters. There’s a feeling at times that it’s trying too hard to be a spot-the-reference anniversary movie in the same way Die Another Day was, only with the benefit of a better director and one foot in the realism of previous Craig outings.


The attempts to do the more trad-Bond thing, notably with the reintroduction of iconic characters, a larger than life crippled villain (commendably unseen until at least the midpoint of the film) and liberal doses of humour, have mixed results. Pretty much every jokey line Craig delivers falls flat, and it would have been better not to try to remould him as a catch-all for the various personas of Bond throughout the years. There is a tangible déjà vu in having a beaten up, ageing character who has gone off the map (see Brosnan in his last two outings; as an aside is age the excuse for why Craig runs so oddly, as if has a couple of bags of walnuts straining to escape from his pants? Or, perhaps that is actually the reason) and I felt I’d seen it all before with the M plotline (she makes hard choices you know, but don’t we all just love her for it).


The attempts to overtly stress the relevance of the field agent in the current age have been going on since Goldeneye, and this is reinforced by establishing the main tool of the villain as cyber-terrorism, an altogether passé plot device (Live Free and Die Hard, for example). Even the graphics used by Silva when he hacks MI6 computers were the sort of thing you’d expect 10 or more ago years. And so it continues; Q is a computer whizz played by Ben Wishaw doing his best Matt Smith impression. Wishaw has a distinctive screen presence, and there’s a strong rapport between him and Craig, but the dialogue between them is laboured, trying hard to be witty and falling flat. By straining to be up-to-date, the writers only show how behind-the-times and middle-aged they are.


As with Wishaw, many of the problems with the script are masked, or at least diluted, by strong casting choices on Mendes' part. Naomi Harris is so winning that you question why she doesn’t remain a field agent, and then realise that it’s because this is about moving the pieces into a certain position rather than following through with the characters. Ralph Fiennes’ Mallory steals every scene he’s in, and makes you think he’d have been a great choice as Bond 15 years ago. Rory Kinnear is also note-perfect as Tanner. 



As for Javier Bardem, he’s a lot of fun and has a couple of solid speeches, although (a symptom of the bloated running time) the writers run out of interesting things to do with him once his plan is revealed (the nature of which is unfortunately very reminiscent of this year’s Avengers).


Judi Dench has been given progressively bigger chunks of storyline since she took on M duties, disproportionate to the importance of her character and reflective purely of having Oscar-winning Actress Judi Dench dribbling prestige all over a blockbuster franchise. She has such prestige she can say, “Fuck” in a Bond film and not cause a fuss! There’s little place for her character to go other than being the (self-) righteous ballbuster, so the series has fallen into a pattern (since The World Is Not Enough) of putting her in peril and then requiring Bond to rescue her, a pensionable damsel in distress (Quantum of Solace went to the lengths of having her show up on location just to harangue him with the usual circular badinage; you’ve got Dench, so maximum screen time means maximum quality Bond). Skyfall goes one step further, such that the entire plot revolves around M; she is now more important than world domination to Bond’s uber-villains. She’s officially become what Bond is all about, such that our stiff upper-lipped (or stubbled-lip in Craig’s case, the sloppy bugger) spy becomes all moist-eyed in her presence. Remember the halcyon days of Bernard Lee?


Compared to Quantum of Solace the action is fantastic, but it doesn’t get anywhere near to Casino Royale for edge of the seat thrills and viscerality (in general, the film can’t compete with Craig’s first). Mendes is clearly more comfortable with one-on-one action beats than vehicles and machines crunching into one another. Generally the spatial geography in these sequences is coherent, which is not only a blessing but essential after the last outing's incoherent shakycam. I particularly enjoyed the William Tell-esque scene with antique pistols, Silva’s assassination attempt on M and the delightfully arty Hong Kong fight shot in silhouette. In contrast, a sequence where Bond pursues Silva reaches its climax with 007 experiencing an onslaught of special effects. In order for this to happen he has to decide not to take a clear shot, listen to Silva tell him how he’s not yet beaten, and then not move while said special effect careers towards him. Perhaps the excuse is he’s getting old.


While I don’t wish to labour the point, the vulnerable action man was done before with (in particular) The World is Not Enough, and it was no more compelling a character beat first time around. In that instance, it whiffed of star power attempting to surgically implant depth on a one-note persona that previously held such notions in contempt (his marriage excepted). Here, it translates as just another example of a film series lacking in self-confidence looking nervously over its shoulder. See how that Dark Knight introduces realism into the superhero genre with Bruce Wayne's progressively more deleterious scars and ailments? Bond can have some of that! Mostly it’s just window dressing. Occasionally it gets in the way of the story. No one wants to see a Bond who can’t shoot straight. The broader concern is that, 17 years on from Goldeneye, there’s still unease about how best to present this icon. Which results in artificial elements being grafted on. The series had prior form for this (Live and Let Die, Moonraker) but it was invariably in the surrounding tissue of the story, rather than assaulting Bond himself.



A slight digression, but I wondered whether the prominent Heineken product placement was serving its intended purpose. Bond only drinks it when he's slumming it and has given up the "good" fight. Possibly it's not on a Blue Velvet level of negative associations, but neither does it translate as a ringing endorsement (certainly not $45 million-worth of ringing endorsement).


Roger Deakins’ cinematography is sumptuous throughout, although the Hong Kong sequence is definitely the stand-out. Likewise, Thomas Newman’s score is by turns inventive and traditional in all the right places. It’s both lush and muscular, and I’m quite willing to admit I didn’t have high expectations given the lack of action movies (or even thrillers) in his back catalogue.


The climax in the Highlands is a set piece too far, particularly with the MacGyver preparations Bond makes for his showdown, and the cornball character that poor Albert Finney is subjected to (I’m sure he was well-paid, however). It’s a tribute to Mendes work that the seams aren’t too gaping until you reflect on them, but there are a number of occasions where the relentless self-referencing of the history of the franchise runs the risk of the film Jumping the (CGI Komodo) Dragon.


Post-Quantum of Solace’s disappointment, I was in favour of the reintroduction of more trad-Bond elements but now, with all the pieces lined up for the next outing, I’m unconvinced it was the right move for Craig. He doesn’t have the lightness of touch to work in the more playful arena of “bells and whistles” Bond, and on the occasions when Skyfall attempts it, there’s a sense that the film is pulling in opposite directions. A scene of bitchy banter between Bond and M over how uncomfortable his Aston Martin is strains so hard to be humorous that you can’t wait to get back to some shooting. Roger Moore wouldn’t have needed to utter a line to make it work, and it’s an example of the makers of the series needing to recognise that Bond has different limitations in different incarnations.  


Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.